Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement?

The diversity of biologic valves available to replace the aortic valve renders selection difficult for the 45- to 65-year-old patient. To evaluate and compare the results of biologic valves in the 45- to 65-year-old patient, we reviewed our experience (1991–2004). Three hundred thirty-two patients between 45 and 65 years old with isolated aortic valve disease had a biologic valve implanted: Freestyle valve in 140 patients, a homograft in 54 patients, a stented Mosaic or Perimount valve (stented xenograft) in 62 patients, and a Ross procedure in 76 patients. Perioperative mortality was comparable for all groups (Freestyle, 2.1%; homograft, 3.7%; stented xenograft, 3.2%; Ross procedure, 1.3%; P = .8). Echocardiographically determined valve performance at discharge was significantly enhanced in the Ross procedure and homograft groups (indexed effective orifice area: Freestyle, 0.9 ± 0.3 cm 2/m 2; homograft, 1.3 ± 0.3 cm 2/m 2; stented xenograft, 0.8 ± 0.2 cm 2/m 2; Ross procedure, 1.4 ± 0.4; P < .0001; mean gradient: Freestyle, 12.0 ± 6.6 mm Hg; homograft, 7.4 ± 4.0 mm Hg; stented xenograft, 15.4 ± 5.4 mm Hg; Ross procedure, 4.6 ± 3.2 mm Hg; P < .0001). For all yearly follow-up, freedom from New York Heart Association class III or IV was comparable and greater than 95% for all groups. At 7 years, cardiac survival (homograft, 96.3% ± 3.7%; Ross procedure, 90.6% ± 6.3%; stented xenograft, 86.0% ± 10.3%; Freestyle, 89.2% ± 10.8%; P = .7) and freedom from reoperation (Ross procedure, 98.5% ± 1.4%; homograft, 90.6% ± 5.7%; Freestyle, 88.0% ± 4.9%; stented xenograft, 90.0% ± 8.0%; P = .4) were comparable. Freedoms from significant bleeding events, valve-related neurologic events, or endocarditis were comparable and greater than 95% for all groups. Type of aortic biologic valve for the 45- to 65-year-old patient does not affect midterm survival or valve-related morbidity. Thus the choice of biologic valve for the 45- to 65-year-old patient should be dictated by patient-surgeon preference, ease of implantation, and reoperation until longer comparative studies are available.